- cross-posted to:
- world@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- world@lemmy.world
Under-16s will be banned from using social media, Prime Minister Keir Starmer has announced.
Starmer says social media is making children unhappy, making it easier for bullies to abuse children, and is “designed to be addictive”. A ban would give children more time, security, and more freedom to grow up - as well as more opportunities, he adds.
“That is all any parent wants. They want to know that Britain will be better for their children, that they will get a fair chance,” the PM says in a speech in Downing Street.
Starmer adds that the government is “not prepared to compromise” on the safety and happiness of children - and that includes in the regulation and enforcement of this ban. He says the government has listened to and learned from countries like Australia, where a similar ban has already been introduced.
You must log in or # to comment.
70% of Australian children get around the ban. And besides: https://blog.rebeltechalliance.org/sm-ban-bad-idea/
It changed the perspective on American imperialism and Israel for at least one generation in the US so I understand these villainous moves. Gotta keep Western narratives alive and unchallenged or else the dummies might wake up!
Children should only learn about the world through verified BBC state propaganda content.
TikTok, Insta, and all these forms have enabled kids to see the reality of life. Instead of banning social media, ban advertising and targeting children.
I’m not entirely sure how that’s panning out in Aus (a quick search suggests it’s a flop, but the sources aren’t great). I think the general consensus is that it’s not as enforceable as they hoped.
We are moving towards an era of a more locked down web in the UK. The main flag here is “robust age verification” - i.e. we’re moving from “you must provide ID to view adult material on social media” to “you must provide ID to use social media”.
One can quickly see “your id must be retained and linked to your account to reduce crime” and “any officer of the law may view this ID to better support crime reduction” slipping in over the next 20 years or so.
Overall, this feels like another Trojan horse to move towards a China-style de-anonymised web. Bad move all around really.
I bought a BlackBerry in 2007/2008, and to get on Facebook I needed to show my ID in an o2 shop. This is all that is required. This is suspicious in the very least.
o2?
Phone/network provider.
We are moving towards an era of a more locked down web in the UK. The main flag here is “robust age verification” - i.e. we’re moving from “you must provide ID to view adult material on social media” to “you must provide ID to use social media”.
And then from there to
you must provide ID to use your deviceand eventuallyyou can only run (state-approved OS) on your device, assuming everything don’t move to thin clients connected to rented servers and the very concept of personal computing don’t die first.I’m in Australia and it’s shit for everyone. The whole thing was basically conceived by SportsBet so they could advertise on social media with impunity.
My kids are on more social media platforms than I am. So are all their friends. It hasn’t slowed anything in that regard.
I can say, none of the shady bootleg porn sites have implemented blocking. So there’s always that.
I’ve survived so far without doing a face scan or ID check. Most of my social media accounts are over 16 years old anyway.
Oh, there’s pretty solid data about Australia. A large percent of kids are still using social media because the ones who no longer use it are the ones whose parents won’t let them use it, which is of course the same group as the ones whose parents always had that power. But we have heard from some vulnerable minority kids who now no longer get access to the support that they used to have. And that’s really f***** up.
those kids socialising other ways. social media isnt socializing anyway
Of course! Whyever didn’t the bullied queer kids or the kids in abusive households or the kids living in remote areas think of that? I bet they’d feel so silly if you told them they should just find support networks elsewhere 🤦♀️
there were support networks before the giant social media companies. and they didnt harvest your data!
In a lot of cases (like the ones I already mentioned!!) there weren’t!!!
sure there was. you dont need big corporations to have support networks on the internet
Believe it or not, those support networks on the old internet were still using social media. Whether or not a medium for interacting with other people socially is owned by a big corporation has no bearing on whether or not it is a kind of social media, and it hasn’t escaped my notice that your shifting of the goalposts here has not made any actually existing policy proposals aimed at getting youths off it any less harmful in any meaningful sense.
You’re right, and it’s failure will be the excuse to deprive us all of more of our privacy and autonomy.
To fucking no sane person’s surprise.
you mean we have privacy now? you know these social media companies already gave info on you even if you dont sign up.
its good if social media companies cant get kids into doomscrolling
We have more than we will and for some of us, who made the sacrifices and took steps, more than others.
They don’t have a copy of my passport and a video of me holding it. They also don’t have a 3D scan of my face, which is what all these age verification companies want from you. They literally use AI while you are filming yourself to 3D scan your face for the Palantir database.
dont use social media then. the less that use it the better
If I can still access your profile an hour from now and it’s not deleted, you’re full of shit.
It’s been 7 now.
so?
You were in the background of a picture uploaded to the net. You are shadow profiled. This problem doesn’t go away because you’ve turned away from it to bury your head in the sand.
You have the means, ways and most importantly, it is still legal to obtain privacy, though, right?
yeah just dont use it
If only I could be this naive. First of all this isn’t going to do much to prevent kids from getting online unless the measures to prevent it become absolutely oppressive. And secondly the bare minimum check requires you to give even me information to the social media companies. And I guarantee they won’t be held accountable if kids find a way to bypass whatever measures get put in place. And of course adults are just as addicted to it as kids but I guess they don’t matter.
If the goal was to reduce the amount of people addicted to social media the solution would be to regulate how social media functions not regulate access to social media. What is being suggested is stupid. You can’t ban things on the internet.
They don’t care if kids do since that isn’t the purpose, just the excuse.
you cant ban things but somehow you can regulate? lol
You can’t ban car crashes. You can regulate car manufacturers to install seatbelts to minimize injury.
you ban under 16 from driving
So what’s your point? That cars don’t need a seatbelt because we’ve banned kids from driving? Actually what you’re doing is just proving my point. For starters that ban doesn’t stop 16 and under from driving, it’s just something that will be used to punish someone after it has happened. At best it’s a deterrent because law-abiding citizens (including children) are less likely to break the law but I’ve personally seen kids take a car for a joyride and crash into someones yard so the ban isn’t going to stop anyone who really wants to go and drive. And more importantly it doesn’t really address the core problem which are collisions and crashes. Despite the ban adult people still end up in crashes. What does help are all sorts of regulations that car manufacturers have to adhere to make sure that the damage is minimized. Instead of having your brains splattered all across the road you might end up with a concussion instead.
And the same applies to social media. Banning kids from social media isn’t going to do anything about the addiction or mental health problems social media causes to people. It won’t even stop kids from using social media because kids are smart and if they want they will find a way around the ban. Now I’ll compromise a bit and say that banning kids from social media isn’t the worst idea because kids are more impressionable and social media might have a much bigger effect on a young mind. But if the goal is to improve the mental health of kids you also have to target the social media companies and regulate them to make sure their impact on mental health is minimized. Not only would that help kids but that would also help adults.
It’s not about that though is it? There’s a world of difference in SM companies knowing what I like to look at (Tools and steam engines mostly) and them having access to my actual address, my actual date of birth, my actual current face…
Do you even know the extent of things they know and what that information allows them to derive about you? They know the patterns of life of billions of people. You’re just a pattern to match with everyone else just like you.
Exactly. It’s more than enough.
Next 20 years? Next year pal. Not just the police either. Just because they don’t tell you about it doesn’t mean it won’t happen sooner. You could organize to try and stop it, just a thought.
Already a member of the EFF, and I teach privacy to my students and coworkers already.
It’s more a rearguard than a fight at this point - most Brits are too distracted to care.
You guys and us both in the US. I know it. We can win, if we organize. We are set against each other, but that is only because we don’t have a populist leader.
“If it continues long enough, even a reign of terror may become a fondly remembered period. People believe they want justice and wise government but, in fact, what they really want is an assurance that tomorrow will be very much like today.” - Terry Pratchett
It’s a good quote, and it tells you a lot about the idea of organising to forcefully change things. Change comes through education, patience, kindness, and self-sacrifice; it comes from teaching people that tomorrow can really be better. It’s never quick, it’s rarely (if ever) a great leader who brings it about, and it’s never such leaders who pay the price.
Just a heads up, the other one ( teyrnon from shitjustworks) who commented to you, promoted strongmans and such authoritarian measures, to fight authoritarianism.
I tried to visit a porn site from Australian VPN server and was prompted with age verification bs.
I just wonder who the hell is asking for this from the population? Out of all the things that are being brought up as issues on either side (like immigrants, trans rights, energy, housing crisis, the wars etc) I’ve never seen this being brought up as the thing anyone has wanted.
How have we reached this level of “democracy” where even protesting is banned…
This is quite popular amongst parents where I am. There’s also a big local push to avoid kids having smartphones before they’re 13. Hopefully by that point they’re mature enough to have a better understanding of what they’re being exposed to, and are better equiped to know when to turn to an adult if something is upsetting or worrying them online.
Notably this isn’t about restricting access to the internet, as kids have many other ways to get online at home, school, a friend’s house, or even the library. Instead it’s about ensuring they aren’t exposing themselves to things they aren’t ready for without an adult to guide them.
ETA: A lot of kids are pretty keen on this too, especially if they have had a bad experience online. The idea that none of their peers has a smartphone or social media means there’s less peer pressure too.
Thank you for the perspective.
I’m surprised parents think this is helping the issue though. I remember being bullied in school and going home after being beaten by other kids, before the time the internet became broadly available or smartphones existing.
Not that I don’t think bullying is a problem, rather that this is duct tape with a side of privacy violation for everyone with barely a thought about how to even do the age verification well.
We are not seeing anything about funding the educational system, trying to attract more teachers, aiming for smaller class sizes, funding activities and clubs or more support for parents to spend time with their kids.
I remember being bullied in school and going home after being beaten by other kids
Now imagine that that beating carries on when you get home, albiet on a different form. Kids gang up on each other online at least as brutally as in the playground. Limiting access to social media removes the peer pressure to put yourself in harms way, and removes the bullies’ ability to access their victim. It is absolutely not a perfect solution, as you, say bullying happened before the internet, but it does go sone way to ensuring kids have some form of sanctuary without being pressured into leaving it.
The second, and, if anything, more horrific, issue is the amount of grooming that goes on online. There is an Ofsted report Review of sexual abuse in schools and colleges that talks about this is more detail. Ideally this is the sort of problem that would be dealt with by social media companies, but unless, and until, it is, it is safer to avoid children accessing these networks unaccompanied.
this is duct tape with a side of privacy violation for everyone with barely a thought about how to even do the age verification well.
Age verification is a thorny question, and I’m certain there is no perfect answer. No smartphones for under 13s is a fairly easy first step. Children that young can’t enter into a contract anyway, so the parents, or another adult have to be involved. Smartphone free childhood is a voluntary pledge, but multiple schools in the area are encouraging their parents to sign up.
Age verification for social media is trickier, but I actually quite liked the bill that was moving forward in California, which just had your device send a flag saying you were either; under 13, 13-16, 16-18, or 18+. That way, services have no excuse for serving up inappropriate content. As always, it’s not perfect. In particular, there are questions about who is responsible for ensuring the flag is set correctly. I think they went astray here, and it should be the owner of the device who controls it, unless it is explicitly made for children, in which case the 18+ flag should not be available.
We are not seeing anything about funding the educational system, trying to attract more teachers, aiming for smaller class sizes, funding activities and clubs or more support for parents to spend time with their kids.
Absolutely, this is a huge problem. The VAT imposed on private school fees is supposed to be ringfenced for this sort of thing, but it’s not enough. We should be putting much more into educating and safeguarding our next generation.
It is a good point about the bullying never stopping, but there are other ways to look at it as well. For example, online communities can be the escape for kids and a way for them to find support and friends if for some reason they are unable to in person. Sure the bill says they’re aiming not to block chat, but it’s not always a clear cut (e.g. discord, also not universally good or bad either).
I also wonder if removing the social media and the online bullying aspect will simply increase the ferocity of the in-person aspect, or even the overall depth as bullies may assign blame to their victims for them losing access to services.
I agree with the rest of your points, unfortunately it’s evident the goal is not to protect kids but to remove anonymity and cater to the oligarchy - otherwise the government would be pushing social media sites to moderate themselves and service providers to give parents tools for this (or age verification in a manner that doesn’t expose your identity outside of your device aside from the age group flag)
I had the opposite problem. I had very few friends IRL, and wasn’t happy. I made a lot more online. Had social media been banned for children, I’m not sure how my life would have gone.
I think the issue is not so much social media inasmuch it’s abilities for parental and user controls lacking (or being unbalanced), or algorithms promoting severe polarisation and radicalisation towards fascism.
That and the cost of living as well the ginormous malevolent oligarch class, which affect all the above. Those are the root issues.
It’d be better to addres those.
Capitalism always trends toward fascism, this is nothing new.
Nothing new, and yet we still do need to talk about it.
Absolutely! I did not want to lessen the conclusion, instead I urge to look at the historic and economic context so it becomes clear this is no accident.
Fascism begins the moment a ruling class, fearing the people may use their political democracy to gain economic democracy, begins to destroy political democracy in order to retain its power of exploitation and special privilege.
- Tommy Douglas, Canadian politician
You don’t press a button and an old society disappears and a new one is born next morning at seven o’clock. Society is changed organically, you slough off the old and the new takes the place. You do what you can for people and work for change. And I don’t mind how hard people want to push. But I’ve no patience with people who want to sit back and talk about a blueprint for society and do nothing about it. I got that in Chicago.
- Also Tommy Douglas
OAPs who don’t understand how the internet or young people work and Age Verification companies.
Emphasis on age verification companies and other beneficiaries…
People better start remembering the 5th of November real soon.
Unpopular opinion: GOOD
Agree. And any professional working or dealing with children would agree.
And, for anyone who is telling: “lEt ThE pArEnTs dO tHaT!!11|!!”, please put yourself in that situation. Would your parents have been able to set rigorous and effective checks on the media you accessed in your youth? And even if so, the conditions in which a teenager lives today are different than the ones you experienced: average time spent with families is decreasing, the average time that teenagers spend in touch with their peers (not necessarily in person, but also via IM) is increasing, and therefore also the peer pressure. Also, what about those kids with absent parents? What about those kids with toxic or incompetent parents?
Sure, I agree with anyone who says that kids should be guided and assisted on social media in the right environments, or in a way to find the right spaces to express themselves (with hobbies, sports, group activities, whatever), and I’ll vote for anyone who could do anything on that purpose. But we can also imagine flying cars at this point.
As a person supporting “professionals” you seem quite dead set on supporting what literally is fascism. Your last paragraph doesn’t make this any better.
Fuck that shit. I’m not a kid and don’t want people spying on me.
Just make the parental controls much easier to set up, have media literacy lessons instead, and that would help far more.
You can quite literally set up screentime for your children easily. So why not do that? Why not mandate that a children’s phone must have a limited amount of screentime?
People with absent parents still require a caretaker, so then those. And those that have toxic/abusive parents… well, how is it going to improve for them if they can’t find help online? If they’re prohibited from going outside?
No, I think we should address it by the root; the polarisation and fascist radicalisation, caused by algorithms promoting hateful content, caused by billionnaires’ growing exploitation of the proletariat, by which they steer social media to their own whims.
That needs to be kicked out.
I think you should make the first step here and upload a selfie video waving your ID around to prove that you are old enough to be on the fediverse/lemmy. Otherwise we must assume that you are under 16 and ban you from all instances.
If the authentication system is similar to a 2FA, where I store my ID information on my mobile phone for instance, and the seller website requires just an authentication token (or code), I’ll happily use it, as it would fit my security terms and requirements. Otherwise, I simply won’t use that service. Fair and square. What of this approach is too tough to get?
You will see for yourself soon enough that you will have to upload your ID or 3D scan your face if you live in one of those garbage countries. Those ID verification companies admit that they are only 95% accurate at estimating user age, which means that 5% of your population is now barred from accessing websites that they should have access to, which should be completely unacceptable in a normal world.
Have a tech question as a teenager? Good fucking luck trying to beat the reddit age verification. Want to refresh your knowledge of how to give first aid? Guess what, fuck you. Need help with school work? Guess what, it’s all on YouTube. Researching a sensitive topic? Age gated, restricted, banned.
If you give your little kids smartphones that’s your fucking problem, not mine!
You will see for yourself soon enough that you will have to upload your ID or 3D scan your face if you live in one of those garbage countries.
What country do you live in? And, if you don’t live in any of those affected countries, why should your opinion be more valuable than the one of the people living in it?
Those ID verification companies admit that they are only 95% accurate at estimating user age, which means that 5% of your population is now barred from accessing websites that they should have access to, which should be completely unacceptable in a normal world.
And that’s an IMPLEMENTATION concern. A legit one, but still relevant just on how the system is implemented, not on the purpose on the system by itself.
Have a tech question as a teenager? Good fucking luck trying to beat the reddit age verification. Want to refresh your knowledge of how to give first aid? Guess what, fuck you. Need help with school work? Guess what, it’s all on YouTube.
That’s a seller problem. Each of them already offers a limited version of their content if you don’t login. Youtube has a Youtube Kids portal too! If the legislation is in place, they would do whatever they could to offer a sanitised version of their content to underage or not identified users.
Researching a sensitive topic? Age gated, restricted, banned.
Why should a teenager do it without guidance? Quite the opposite, the risk is to find just bad advice. This argument gets me even more convinced.
If you give your little kids smartphones that’s your fucking problem, not mine!
Yeah because that’s how kids reason, isn’t it? If you forbid something to them they absolutely won’t go to their peers and friends to get access to that, will they?
What country do you live in? And, if you don’t live in any of those affected countries, why should your opinion be more valuable than the one of the people living in it?
There is some sense in that; however in this case this is completely absurd. Do human rights violations not matter? Because thats what’s happening here, there are also wars which fit right in your logic, is that out of our concern too?
I’m certainly against people forcefully planting their beliefs and culture (I.e. Christianity, or other “superiors” who think their ethics are true) in other places. But honestly, if you believe things like genocide (which is included In your logic) is non of our concern, as long as its in a different country - then there is no point even continuing to read your entire post.
This is the internet, an international place. Everyone’s informed opinion is valuable here, regardless of country.
But Youtube Kids fucks over everyone, even those who are not a kid. Google’s Youtube for example automatically deletes the comment section if it even remotely thinks your video is aimed at children. So content creators instead have to get creative and insert unneccessary violence/gore (like Cas van de Pol does), to avoid this.
If your kids go to peers to have social media access, then why don’t you host gatherings for the kids and friends that are social media-free? You know, the ones that existed before internet?
It can also be enforced differently. On schools, there are social media bans that work without infringing privacy.
Guess how they figured it out? They simply confiscated mobile phones until school was over.
I 100% agree with that view but honestly if losing lemmy means we lose Facebook, Insta, and the rest of pure online cancer then so be it.
What? They are still there, but they and their ID verification companies have even more data to sell.
They might as well just introduce an umbrella ‘won’t somebody please think of the children act’. They’re moving very quickly from porn to social media, and the slope is starting to feel real slippery.
On the other hand everyone think that social media are dangerous for the children so something need to be done.
I am afraid that you cannot have children protection without some sort of control
There are innumerable far more dangerous things we teach them to protect themselves from. Which who knows could come in handy once they turn 16
Personally, I’m of the view that a blanket ban is simply not going to work, and comes with all the same problems of the online safety act, mostly that the government, or the companies they employ to verify ages, simply cannot be trusted with that information. If control needs to be implemented, it should be in having mandatory parental control options, but ultimately I believe it to be the job of the parents to utilise them, not the government.
Personally, I’m of the view that a blanket ban is simply not going to work, and comes with all the same problems of the online safety act, mostly that the government, or the companies they employ to verify ages, simply cannot be trusted with that information.
Government already has your informations, problem are the companies. But in the end I think that the only viable option to have some sort of decent check is that the company try to verify the age with the government, which only answer yes|no.
If control needs to be implemented, it should be in having mandatory parental control options, but ultimately I believe it to be the job of the parents to utilise them, not the government.
Parental control failed time and again. In the end the problem are not the kids who follow what the parents say, but the others. And nowadays it seems that parents, first and foremost, are more than happy to let social media to keep their kid occupied.
As you say, the government already has that information, so while people might not be happy about that, it does seem a semi-reasonable way of confirming age. But the current plan is the reverse of that, with the government asking companies to conform age using a third party, which not only will definitely be using it for advertising purposes, but is more likely to get hacked, and all the information make it into even worse hands.
The problem with a ban in response to poor parenting is that it just disincentivises both the parents and children who have been doing it right until now, because if they’ll lose access all the same then what was the point of doing otherwise until now. And what would be the point of doing it right in future.
And what would be the point of doing it right in future.
I do the right thing because it is the right thing and not because I expect something in return. Then I may contest the law because it is stupid or I can follow it to the letter to show how stupid it is.
In the end people that do the right thing will continue, like parents who don’t give a damn will continue to don’t give a damn about it.
As do many people, but there are plenty others who will see this as being punished for doing the right thing, and will be less inclined to do so going forward. Whereas if this was addressed properly, it would continue to incentivise people who need that nudge to keep doing the right thing, whilst also pushing those less inclined to do the same.
I guess what I’m getting at is, this is just a terrible way to address a legitimate problem. Which seems to be the way this government operate.
I’m all for it. The internet is unregulated, and it has a direct impact on people’s consciousness, it dictates what they think about.
Therefore, our minds, our emotions, our impulses and intentions are also unregulated.
My only concern is that this is a rather lazy approach when all it took was good digital literacy.
UK assuming everyone online is a child unless they are willing to have their passport leaked.
As a parent I think this is a GOOD first step. Reason: it is much easier to get my kids off social media if I can tell them it is prohibited, and I’m convinced it will improve their grades (amongst many other things).
Dont be crying when your kids leave you without contact one day. Also because it is easier, it don’t automatically make it a good choice - your kids are not machines.
As a parent you could tell them its prohibited anyway. You can literally block access to it.
Why aren’t you parenting them on this topic then? Beside the parenting bits you can also put in place technical measures to filter out what they can access… reasonably so. And when they break out of those controls it also means that they are smart enough to take on the internet anyway.
Don’t be beligerent, matey. Get some kids first, then see how it works out ;-)
I have two… I kind of see… I’m not claiming expertise but « matey » isn’t on his first trip…
Crazy to see that you feel the need to downvote my answer…
Why not explain to them how to safely navigate the internet, and tell them that if they ever encounter something strange, they can speak to you? Why not put up blockers yourself? Or not give them access to social media in the first place?
… Announced on a social media site owned by a man who encouraged Pogroms and generates CSAM for profit.
…and that is why we need the ban! /s
Oh the hypocrisy… The fascists live on it, and no one bats an eye.
How do you get an entire population of adults to voluntarily scan their faces and submit them to Palantir?
By banning them from the Internet
Aren’t they already scanned? Don’t know about the UK but in modern countries there are cameras everywhere
Why protect the children from rape gangs and stabbings when you can protect them from youtube and tiktok instead.
Why not both? Social media has had a negative effect on the youth, it sucks.
Social media has had a negative effect
on the youth, it sucks.FTFY. Algorithmic social media owned by American big tech is a net negative for anyone involved, save the billionaire owners of these platforms. If you feel like banning something, ban algorithmic social media in its entirety. Deny these networks to operate in your country, full stop.
Just don’t give me that crap about “social media bans only for under-16s”, which is just a pretext for introducing identity verification and killing anonymity on the net.
Exactly, we have people against people because of this situation when the actual focus should be corpos. There are agruments which support such bans; however, the one thing they forget is who is the victim and who is the abuser. Because last time I looked, the abusers should be banned not the victims.
But even with that in mind, age has no place here, because the induced ageism is the entire drive of this entire law and movement.
Fascists are experts in dividing people and diverting the blame.
Alcohol has a negative effect. Historically it has not gone well when countries have tried to ban alcohol.
Adults can make their own decisions. They can consume things that are bad for themselves. They can smoke, they can drink, they can gamble. Kids, including teens, do not have brain developed enough to comprehend the consequences for their decisions. They might understand the words you’re saying if you try to explain the consequences, but they wouldn’t fully grasp the magnitude.
Not to mention there is 100% more damage done to a developing brain. It changes the way their brains function that does not happen when someone starts using social media only as an adult. The same goes for drinking, gambling, and smoking is just bad for everyone.
In adulthood, social media use is also linked to activation in the brain’s reward centers, but two key differences may lessen harm, Prinstein said. First, adults tend to have a fixed sense of self that relies less on feedback from peers. Second, adults have a more mature prefrontal cortex, an area that can help regulate emotional responses to social rewards.
https://www.apa.org/news/apa/2022/social-media-children-teens
ban algorithmic social media in its entirety
You want the government to define an algorithm? Sorting by newest first is an algorithm… It would just be a ban on social media, which I can guarantee nearly everyone on this site would call absurd as well.
Classic example of an strawman. Blame it all on the booze.
If anything, it would be an example of false equivalence. I don’t think it is, to be clear. But definitely not a “classic” example of strawman.
Yeah I agree with all of that. There is more appetite for the youth ban is all. I dont want verification and believe there are huge risks for government over reach here, but I think the goal of getting kids off social media is brilliant.
Same reason smoking bans are generational, its easier to pass.
Plutocracies with total informational control of it’s citizens produces far more harm than kids having freedom online as per their parent’s direction.
But no, surrender to the government to protect the kids, I’m sure the plutocracy will keep them as safe as they plan on keeping your investments.
Social media has fueled and enabled the authoritarian power grabs across the globe.
I am not surrendering to the government by supporting the idea that children should not be accessible to everyone all the time. I do thinkparents should be more involver in their childs life online ad offline but there are reasons why governments say you can beat your kids, withold food, allow them alcohol, etc.
There are reasons the government wants to force everyone to link their id and likeness to their ip address and accounts online, and it’s not the kids.
How fucking dense are we taking the government at their word while they bring the trojan horse inside the walls of liberal democracy. In the UK at that, a country that has in fact fallen farther than the US in many respects. But it’s cool because it’s “our” guy doing it! Cancelling the right to protest, jury trials, surrendering citizens to tech and instituting a dystopian hellscape where peter thiel and his ilk craft secret social scores that will determine everything about your life, what jobs you will get, loans, prices charged, police and court treatment.
Fucking sheep.
You made a lot of assumptions there and im not interested in explaining myself to someone who lacks the capacity to converse
Those are presumptions, correct ones. Get your head out of the asses of the suits on tv telling you how things are, it’s not that way, it’s the other way. You might already know that and are playing us on here though. Either way, you are the problem, trusting the wrong people, or worse.
Presumptions imply evidence, of which you have none to support your claims. But the confidence speaks volumes.
Pove you’re not a child so your data can be sold to advertisers so they can continue to sell you stuff.
It’s not just advertisers by a long shot, they aren’t even the main customers in most respects now. Governments want all of that information and buy it, as do other commercial interests, including security consultants and contractors like Palantir.
Governments can use go betweens to buy the information too, China for instance, is likely getting every single piece of information sold by data brokers. The entire thing is a joke, on us, because it’s not about the kids, it’s about locking down the internet and crafting social scores based on everything we have said or done online and off run through half baked ai threat detection.
Starmer is a fascist cunt that will hand the government to openly fascist cunts, but yay, go team! /s
Queer Harmer doesn’t seem to care about making trans children unhappy.
Trans kids are just a tool that harmer uses for his fascist laws.
No see you ban puberty blockers and then ban social media so they don’t find out that diy exists before it’s too late!!!
It’s perfect! .
.
…Ahahahagagahahhabab 😭😭😭
